The United State Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence discovered during an illegal stop after a suspect is arrested on a valid warrant is admissible in court.
The majority in the 5-3 opinion said that the evidence can be used against the defendant as long as the stop is not the result of flagrant police misconduct, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The ruling reinstates the conviction of Edward Joseph Strieff Jr., who was found with methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in his possesion after he was arrested on a minor traffic warrant during a stop in 2006.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, said the officer's actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights.
"The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote. Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent.
Utah Solicitor General Tyler Green said following the ruling that the decision corrects an "erroneous opinion" by the Utah Supreme Court.
"Now courts and prosecutors throughout the country know to follow what has long been the majority rule: Evidence seized in a search incident to an arrest on a valid warrant can be introduced during a defendant's trial as long as the initial stop did not flagrantly violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights," he said.
